Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2021 — Online, CA/US
Parliamentary Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a parent judge with one year of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.
Hi, I'm a parent judge and have been to a few online tournaments and one in-person (Jack Howe 2023) at the time of writing. My preference is that you speak clearly enough to be understood - no spreading. I look forward to seeing you debate!
I vote based on organization. Your arguments need to get me from A to D, have good impacts that make sense and if you are claiming abuse you must be clear what was abusive. If shoes lead to death give me step to step as to why. I won’t do the work for you, I will know your speaks after the first two speeches but I look at the flow after the round to see how the over all round went. If your case doesn’t make sense on my flow then you may be dropped. Persuasion is how the other processes what they hear you say, not what you think you said.
Origination, clear follow through of how each point ties to the topic and attention getter is how I weigh the speech it’s self. Knowing your walk, time management, eye contact and good projection is what I expect the speaker to show.
If you do not have cards then be memorized. If you are not then be on cards, you can be a great speaker on cards but not on a minute long of a 9 minute speech. At least practice your walk, eye contact, projection and body control. You might be ranked lower for being on cards but I cannot give you the 4 or 5 if I hear a minute.
If your character is supposed to make me cry, then make every cry, make me angry make me what ever emotion your character is expressing so I can feel your message through your performance.
speak clear, speak loud and be bold. I purposely sit in the back because you need to own the room and have everyone be involved in the work you put into your piece.
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.
In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.
In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".
Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.
I'm a recent Berkeley grad. I'm experienced in judging lay debate - I've judged parli and LD and have watched multiple rounds outside of my own hires (my partner is a debate coach).
Please warrant your arguments. While I will evaluate arguments as objectively as possible, I will not be particularly impressed if you give me a high magnitude impact without any explanation. Please do not run theory arguments in front of me unless it's absolutely necessary. If your opponent has made the round unsafe for you, I will be on your side - just tell me how I should sign the ballot.
As a general rule of thumb, please be respectful to each other. Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
(Written by daughter who does public forum and is also judging)
I am a LAY JUDGE. Don’t use any debate jargon. Go slowly and explain everything. Don’t go fast at all because I will either zone out from boredom, nothing will stick, and/or I won’t be following along. I will probably listen to you more if you sound interesting and convincing, don’t be monotonous. Make sure you enunciate, I need to hear you and understand you clearly. Assume I don’t know anything about the topic and don’t use abbreviations at all. It’s better for you if I understand how you’re winning just one argument very, very clearly rather than if you cover the entire flow and I understand 20% of it.
Before each of your speeches, say your name, if you're the 1st or 2nd speaker, what school you're from, and the side you are representing. Give an off-time roadmap and signpost very well. Instead of referring to cards by their authors, remind me what the card said and why it matters. Be strategic and structure your speeches around 1 or 2 big issues, this is preferred over going line-by-line.
Collapse (my daughter has explained this to me so I know you aren’t just leaving out or ignoring arguments). Extend all your links very clearly and weigh. Tell me exactly where to vote and why. Don't bring up anything in final focus that you did not mention in summary. Time yourselves and announce the total amount of prep time you’ve used after each time so that everyone in the round is on the same page. Use prep time for reading your opponent’s cards. If you’re not doing cost-benefit framework, explain clearly why I should prefer the alternative you are proposing. I will not disclose and all feedback will be given on my ballot, not verbally.
Don’t be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. You can be assertive, but don’t be mean, disrespectful, or rude. (No eye-rolling, laughing, etc. during an opponent’s speech). Your speaker points may tank if you are/do any of the aforementioned things. Overall, be civil and have fun.
Add me on email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Good debating can overturn any preference I explain below. I'll vote for who wins the debate.
It doesn’t matter if an argument was “conceded” or is a “voting issue”. Explain why that matters.
I come into the round with very few rigid preconceptions about how the round should go and I will try to intervene as little as possible.
I have debated LD for 5 years, ranging from lay to circuit, so speed shouldn’t be a problem as long as I’m part of the email chain. I have judged public forum and parliamentary from middle school to high school level as well, but at the end of the day I am most comfortable with LD.
I like to see clash between frameworks. If there is not a single word in the entire debate that mentions anything about fw, I will default to util. When you're extending your framework in your 1AR or 2NR, don't just say "extend the Pappas card"; you should explain why that card supports the idea of your framework being the more apt one for the round.
I like to see all parts of the DA being pretty clear. Make sure you impact out all your arguments and you weigh in the 2NR. I like creative counterplans quite a bit, but don't go too far. Counterplans should solve the case and avoid the link to the DA. Conditionality is usually good, but 3 or more is pushing it, and I’ll be more easily persuaded by theory arguments.
I personally didn’t read a lot of K’s as a debater, but I will vote for it regardless. I think that the link should be very clear to the aff, and don’t give me trash alts that just say “reject the aff”. Please make it very clear how the alt actually addresses the problem that you are pointing out with the kritik.
If you’re one of the debaters who comes into a round knowing you’re going to collapse to theory, please strike me.
If there is abuse in the round, for sure run theory, but that doesn’t warrant running friv theory just to get a ballot. Also, I have been noticing that everyone just defaults to “drop the debater”, but don’t make every single one of theory shells with drop the debater, especially when the abuse doesn’t really warrant it.
Personally believe that when judges have to think for a long time, that just means the debaters did not do good enough jobs. Be sure you give clear judge directions in your later speeches and tell me the really important issues and arguments you are using to win the round.
Won’t vote on tricks.
my judging background:
- I have judged twice before so relatively a novice judge (no pun intended), but I have participated and won Extempore and debate competitions in High school days and have a good public speaking skills. I like eloquence.
- What do I value most in debate rounds:
- I value facts and its clear/concise delivery. No lengthy explanations. To the point-crisp and clear facts with reasonable speed. Cannot grasp fast speakers.
- Normal speed ..meaning - as long as words are separated, I am okay. If you feel you are running while speaking, you are fast for me. You may jog, I will try to lower my hand to indicate to slow down.
Do you understand debate jargon, or should students be careful to spell things out for you?
Please do spell out for me for now. May be I will get a hang of it soon.
How do you view speaker points?
Speaker points are judging your abilities as speaker so if you are eloquent, clear and concise - you get it. On the other side, too much repetitive stuff or too fast in speed (to the point, I cannot understand what you are saying) goes against. Using effective use of time is important. I view negatively, going over time limit or underutilizing time (more than a minute of time not used)
How do you view cross-examination time?
- It is an important segment as other way to put across your point.
Hello. I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging debate. I competed in what is now called Public Forum Debate and the individual events of Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speech at John F. Kennedy High School in Richmond, California. Our coach was David Dansky and during his 25 year tenure, Kennedy High teams won three state championships.
I have a professional background in law, originally as a litigator and then a transactional lawyer.
I value clarity in presenting one's points in debate rounds and curiosity in listening well to an opponent's points, thinking them through and responding to them.
It's been a while since I competed and thus I appreciate when students take care to spell out things at least once before proceeding to refer to them by debate jargon. My hope is that every student emerges from a round I judged feeling like they gave a great effort and had fun.
Brief Intro about myself:
I am Programmer/Tech Enthusiast. I love learning about new technology coming every day. I have been judging for more than one year. In last one year i have all the forms of debate format.
Debaters i will prefer that participants don't do spreading. Its very important that i am able to understand what you want to present. There is no point of you providing information that i am not able to get to it. I understand you have lot to say but you need to make sure the judge is also following along. I am big believer of "Keep it Short and Simple"
As a judge, i will try to keep myself open-minded and not to impose any personal opinion what so ever.
Most important, please be respectful to your opponents and team mates. At end of day this is all going to be an constructive effort.
Hi I am an experienced parent judge. I have a pretty good understanding of the world and economic systems. I value probability over magnitude for the most part but can be convinced otherwise. I do not want every debate to be about mass extinction or how one economic policy leads to nuclear war. I can understand theory but am not likely to vote on it unless clear abuse in round. No Ks. No speaking fast. I prefer logic over straight facts. Repeating your point does not mean that you responded to their point. Do not say that a team conceded an argument when they clearly did not. POIs are fine but do not ask more than 2 and do not be obnoxious while doing it will drop your speaks. It is fine if you choose to decline a POI but between the two partners, you have to accept at least one. CPs are fine even PICs but if you are running CP you have to prove that your CP solves better. I do buy mutually exclusive arguments through net benefits but you have a harder job to me proving that the aff does not just do the same by perming the CP. If you want to perm do it as a test of advocacy as that is easier to understand as a judge. All advocacy/rhetoric is binding do not try to kick anything. Try not to run new contentions in the second speech. I do not protect the flow. Try to use less jargon while actually debating. I can understand some of it but not all. Have fun.
coached debate at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2022
policy at southwestern cc and USC
email chain —-> email@example.com
I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it, I rarely check cards unless I'm explicitly told to, but I read along as it happens
I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't
debates are simplest when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args
keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech
debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough
t/fw: will vote on it but I've been labelled a K hack
Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost
Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, its a standard -.- in policy, condo is cool
Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!
"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff
Tricks: pls don't thx ~~
Cheater CPs: love a smart CP debate. give me the net ben to the cp
High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.
high Phil Ks: okay so faciality or baud or the "really really weird" stuff you wanna read, I'm honestly pretty down. I just need to understand
Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time
K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.
Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool
I have taken this down because I am no longer an active judge on the circuit. If you need to contact me my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Please be succinct and courteous.
I generally prefer logic and technicality, so make sure your arguments clearly flow from one to another (organization!). If space exploration leads to global warming, then explain step by step as to how they're linked. If you claim your opponent is abusive during a round, be clear what was abusive and explain.
Link and weigh impacts explicitly. Tell me what to cross off and highlight on my flow, and tell me why. You can point out voting issues or whatever, but please always elaborate.
My experience is mainly derived from LD, but I have knowledge of parliamentary debate as well.
- Explicitly mention your impacts and frameworks - tell me why I should vote for you
- Road mapping is encouraged, helps with my flowing
- you can spew a sporadic of eloquently sounding words, but I will vote based on what I find sounds more logical in the end
- You can read DAs, CPs, whatever - just make sure you have links to your arguments
Please be respectful to your opponent, but aggressive clashing is always entertaining. If I pick up anything racist or homophobic, your speaker points won't look pretty.
Spreading is fine, but still try to articulate everything.
Hey! I'm Christopher (he/him, xe/xem) and I'm excited to be your judge! I'm an third-year undergrad student at UCLA pursuing Communication and Disability Studies. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me at email@example.com.
I'm currently coaching parli at New Roads High School, and I’m a former parli debater and captain of the Menlo-Atherton High School debate team. I have 5 years of parli experience. My partner and I were in the top 10 of the NPDL rankings for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, and I’m well versed in both lay and flow debate (I personally prefer the former).
TL;DR: I’m down to listen to anything you can get me to understand, but I prefer topical, warranted, and logical debates. Just make sure you explain yourself. Take a couple POIs.
Put your pronouns on Tabroom if you feel comfortable doing so! A small gesture can make the debate space a bit more comfortable for trans/nonbinary debaters (I know it helped me feel welcome). I don’t want to put you on the spot before the round by asking for pronouns, so only use pronouns your opponents have confirmed and use gender neutral language (partner, opponent, etc). On NSDA Campus and Zoom, you can edit your screen name to include your pronouns (if you feel inclined).
If you need an accommodation (be it related to a disability or something else) please ask before the round starts (or shoot me an email before). Remember this is supposed to be fun!
This is what I was best at. Good case debate will reward you. Have warrants for your claims/links, quantify, diversify, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents so I don't have to. Just saying "our impact negates/outweighs theirs" doesn't work if you don't give me any context for why, especially if the argument is less well known. Offense is important, tell me why they lose (and use that to prove that you win).
Good speaking is often associated with case debate. I personally enjoyed using rhetorical flourish myself when competing! However, you won't be penalized if speaking isn't your strong suit. I trust you're doing your best.
I have a fairly high threshold for voting on theory. I need proven abuse to vote on theory and I default to reasonability. I will vote on theory that points out exclusion from the other side (speed, misgendering, etc).
Don't run an AFF K if you don’t disclose and give your opponents an opportunity to engage. NEG Ks are fine. I’ve run some projects about exclusion and my experience in the debate space, and I prefer criticisms that are genuine and have a link and alternative that effects actual change in the round or participants' mindset. Do not run identity-based Ks about groups you are not apart of (unless an instance of oppressive language/behavior happens in round about a marginalized group). If you lack experience responding to Ks, mention that in your speech and let me know how I should weigh your arguments against the K (i.e. should I rely more on logic than how many arguments you can counter, discussing current events are more impactful than theoretical debates, etc)
I can vote on other Ks, I just may not feel good about it. Explain anything related to literature well, especially terms and any abstract concepts (post-modernism is confusing and you probably want me to understand what you're talking about). I have little patience for debaters who run Ks just for an easy win against a less experienced team.
Not too good at it. I’ll let you know if you’re going too fast (I’ll yell slow or clear). If you don’t listen, there's no guarantee I'll flow the rest of your speech). Don’t spread your opponents out, seriously.
Points are rewarded for speaking, humor, good strategy, etc. Average speaking will get a 27.
Enjoy yourselves. Debate was my thing in high school (I debated into out rounds instead of going to the hospital for a collapsed lung once in my junior year). Have fun, it’s not the end of the world, and ask any questions before and after round. (I’ll disclose with RFD if rules/time allows)
I will drop you if you are racist, transphobic, queerphobic, misogynistic, ableist, etc, even if your opponents don’t make it a big voting issue. I will lecture you in my RFD. You’ll also get the lowest speaks I can give you. Bad rhetoric is the first step towards violence and dehumanization in the real world.
Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.
For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.
For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.
For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.
RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.
Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.
Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.
I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.
Off-time roadmaps are fine.
Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.
I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.
- POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.
If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.
I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary for the past 3 years. I appreciate clarity and logic above everything. Make sure that you thoroughly address your opponent's points. Don't speak too fast, I find that debaters often lose out on content and emphasis from "spreading."
I prefer case debate, but if you must run more technical arguments, make sure to explain them thoroughly. I will require more explanation and convincing for arguments that are further away from the topic.
I have a basic understanding of topicalities. Not too familiar with theory (dislike frivolous theory) or kritiks.
Have fun and good luck!
I was in speech and debate for four years in high school. I competed mainly in Parliamentary in my junior and senior year, and in Lincoln Douglas in my freshman and sophomore year.
That being said, I prefer clear speaking over spreading though a little bit of speed is fine. I also find traditional forms of debate more appealing, so try to prioritize logical reasoning over technical (or, of course, abusive) arguments. Remember to sign post, link, warrant, impact, weigh, extend, etc etc to make flowing and judging easier for me.
And stay respectful!
I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.
General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)
Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:
- Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
- Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
- Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
- Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
- Defense is not sticky. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
General Debate Philosophy
I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.
Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of world beyond will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.
Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm
Regarding speaker points:
I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 22 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."
Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.
Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.
In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.
In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.
Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Regarding the decision (RFD):
I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their respective W or L.
A few exceptions to this rule:
- Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
- Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack didn't happen. It will not go your way.
- Regarding links: I need things to just make sense. Do not use terrible links. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What?” then you have lost me. If using a link chain, link well with appropriate warrants. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.
I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.
I'm not a big fan of theory/kritiks. If it comes up and it's warranted, make sure I know it. But most of the time, I won't be happy that it's happening. I advise against it.
Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.
Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.
I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.
This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.
- No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
CAL UPDATE: Bring me food and both teams get max speaker points (preferably little gem or a crave subs chicken little or almare gelato)
I did circuit LD, parli, and Congress in high school for Mitty and I coach there now (qualled to states, nats, and was pretty highly ranked in parli), and I'm a junior at Cal doing CS and Business (firstname.lastname@example.org). I can judge any event except like platform speech at a pretty tech level, so just be yourself and have fun!!!!
I'm too lazy to write my argument preferences out so yeah I'm fine with anything. I'm fine with any type of argument (phil, Ks, theory, CPs) and any arguments against them. I'm pretty tabula rasa, like the limit approaches infinity for how tab I am.
You do you, just don't be a meanie. Also, be clear and dont go like 300+ WPM, I'm probably tired.
When speaking, I prefer expression and good communication over speed.
My paradigm is as follows:
I don't like spreading because, since it is generally too fast even for college judges to flow, it has an ornamental feel, which is the wrong feel for argumentation. Speaking speed should be in the upper level of what a lay judge can flow.
I don't mind "tech" if it is used to present perspectives that are relevant to the topic, but I do not like the use of tech to move the focus of argumentation away from the topic, such as a "pik," which is an attack on the topic's validity. Sometimes, of course, topics are poorly written or contradictory, but there are no clear rules or procedures for challenging topics in a round, guaranteeing a certain chaos. Some debaters enjoy chaos, but from a judge's point of view the more chaos there is, the harder it is to pick a winner.
I'm a lay parent judge with little judging experience. I will flow and take notes.
1. please signpost
2. no spreading please, I'm not good with speed
3. Be courteous - no profanity
4. Make well-explained arguments that are warranted and have clear impacts
5. Give me a clear reason to vote for you (weigh in your last speech)
6. You can try theory but it has to be really well explained (explain the abuse) or I'm not voting on it and please no Kritiks
I've debated public forums for a few years, as both a first and a second speaker.
I'm generally tech>truth and tabula rasa, but you'll get dropped if you try to convince me that racism is good or something of that absurdity.
Public Forum is not for spreading. I don't mind speed, but remember quality of arguments > quantity of arguments. If I stop typing or writing in the middle of your speech, it means that you're going too fast for me to flow and those arguments are going to be lost forever. Take it as a sign to slow down.
I'm more lenient about speed in LD or policy as long as I have a copy of your case to follow.
Make sure you set a framework so I know what to vote on (if you don't have a framework but your opponents do, guess whose framework I'll use). Basically, tell me why I should vote for you over the opponent. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'. Impacts should be terminalized, and voters should be explicitly outlined in the back half.
Evidence should be read according to NSDA rules (last name, date). Be prepared for me or your opponents to call for a piece of evidence (either have the card cut or the link ready). I don't usually call for cards unless it's pivotal in my decision or if it's a pretty serious clash of cards. ALSO, simply reading me a link without warranting is not going to be enough to get any offense. Warrant the card, tell me why it matters, and explain its relevance to the resolution.
I know very basic theory, so if you choose to run it, make sure to explain clearly what you are arguing. Also make sure your opponents know enough to respond to theory. If you run theory against a team who has no idea what theory is, I'll drop the arg.
Speaks start at 27.5 and move up or down from there based on how you act during round, regardless of whether you win or lose. Articulate your points loudly and clearly. Be respectful to your opponents, not rude. Please, please, please signpost your second half speeches.
I do not judge off crossX, but I do listen. Please remember that cross is for questions about the other team's speeches. Addressing me (the judge) in the middle of crossX or trying to give a speech during crossX is the fastest and easiest way to lose speaks.
I don't mind counterplans in LD or policy as long as the aff reads a plan beforehand. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense for you to provide a counterplan to a nonexistent plan. Counterplans in PF are a no-no move and will not be flowed.
New arguments or evidence brought up in second summary or final focus will not be evaluated. Defense should be extended through second summary, and anything that I don't flow from summary won't be flowed into final focus.
If there's anything you are unsure about (either on judging preference or anything), I'd be happy to clarify before round starts.
Also look at Yvo Sandjideh's paradigm here. She's kinda cool and it has a lot of content and standards that I agree with.
Little bit of background, I debated PF for 4 years with MVLA, but haven't competed since Sept 2019 or judged since Mar 2020, so don't expect me to be the most tech/flow judge out there. I haven't done any research on this topic beforehand.
If there are any accommodations that you may need during round, please let me or your opponents know so we can try to work something out. Debate should be educational, not a place for you to bully other students.
Please extend your links and impacts through summary and final focus. Anything that's crucial must be there if you want me to vote on it. Otherwise, speak clearly, signpost, and don't be rude.
- you NEED to read a trigger warning and provide time for response if you're addressing a sensitive topic. saying trigger warning and moving on isn't enough
- prefer a strong analytical arg over a bunch of cards (of course please have cards to back up your arguments though). I won't vote off of something that I don't understand
- anything important must be in summary and FF if you want me to vote on it. make all necessary links for your impact clear to me!!!
- weigh, weigh, WEIGH!
- not familiar with theory, but if you explain it clearly enough, I'm willing to evaluate it
- anything important that comes up during cross needs to be brought up in speech. I generally don't flow it or pay attention
- I can keep up with some speed, but you shouldn't need to in order to articulate your argument
- with that being said, wifi may be against you so I'd advise you don't speak too quickly or I can't guarantee I understood what you said
- I won't hesitate to tank your speaks if you're rude or disrespectful
- use jargon if you'd like, but that doesn't mean you don't need to explain your args
- signpost, number args, etc. to make it easier for me to refer to on my flow since I can't guarantee I've flowed every word out of your mouth
- DO NOT LIE. that's all.
- I'll call cards if you tell me to/if you're accused of misconstruing or miscutting a card
I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below
Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.
If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round
IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is
1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.
Philosophy of Debate:
Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.
I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told
Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.
Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)
Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.
Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.
Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.
Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.
I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.
I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.
Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.
Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.
Public Forum specifics:
I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.
I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.
Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.
Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.
Lincoln Douglass and Policy:
I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.
Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com
Occupation: Software Engineer
School Affiliations: DVHS
Years of Judging : None
How will you award speaker points to the debaters?
Talk clearly and slow. Make eye contact. No stalling. No Public Forum jargon.
What sort of things help you make decision at the end of the debate?
Who most effectively argued their position. How they handle counter and interactions
Do you take lot of notes or flow the debate?
Flow the debate
Clothing / Appearance - Somewhat (5)
Use of Evidence - Weighed Heavily (10)
Real World Impacts - Heavily (8)
Cross Examination - Somewhat (5)
Debate Skill over truthful arguments - Weighed Heavily (10)
I co-sign McKenna Peterson's paradigm pasted below.
General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.
Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.
Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.
Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.
Don't Be a bully or overly aggressive. Being passionate is okay, but do not disrespect your opponent.
Rebuttals: Create logical and/ or emotionally persuasive arguments
Off-Time Road Maps: I encourage off-time roadmaps so that I can flow easier.
Spreading: I can not keep up with spreading and ask that you avoid using it with me. If I cannot understand your speech due to spreading, I will be swayed to vote against you.
K's and Theories: I am open to K's and theory arguments. However, I will not vote for them if they do not make sense and have no link.
Overall I want a straightforward, easy-to-follow debate. I am open to unique plans and encourage you to think outside the box. I view debate as a game, so have fun.
My name is Rishabh Meswani, a former high school debater, and a UC Berkeley alum.
*Generally prefer less theory type debate*
Kritks: I am most likely not going to vote on Kritiks. I understand how they work, and you are free to run one, but I would much prefer a debate focused on the topic, using evidence, and reasoning. You would have to be extremely convincing to win on a Kritik.
Speaking: Speed is fine, but be reasonable. It is in your best interest if I am able to understand and write down all your arguments properly.
Other than that, off-time roadmaps are great, focus on terminalizing impacts, have clear and powerful voter issues, utilize evidence, and be respectful to your opponents.
Looking forward to some great debates :)
Let me know if you have any questions - you can reach me at email@example.com.
I'm also the CEO & Co-Founder of a non-profit called Fremont Debate Academy, and have been running it with my team for the past 7 years.
Here is a quick description of the non-profit:
Fremont Debate Academy (FDA) is an international 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to create a debate & civics program in every school and every district across the world. Over the past ~7 years, our team of over 200+ has impacted ~5000 students, has programs scheduled in 19 states & 8 countries for this fall, and is training teachers from Teach For America and Broward County (Florida)! Our volunteer team has aggregated 20,000+ volunteer hours, and FDA is a certifying organization for the Presidential Volunteer Service Award (PVSA).
If you're interested in a leadership opportunity as a high schooler or college student, please reach out! Would love to discuss more or answer any questions.
I debated all 4 years when I was in high school. Currently attending UCSD.
Be polite and respectful to your opponents
Conflicts: Torrey Pines HS and Torrey Pines Independent (was Head Coach of S&D for TPHS)
Include me in the email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Slow down for tags/authors/analytics, I'll tell you to slow down and clear in round if necessary.
I'll vote off of most arguments, I am more familiar with Phil and case debating, make sure to explain arguments very well too
I evaluate the role of the ballot as the highest layer in the kritik
I'm not as familiar with K debate so please give good overviews and explanations
Perms are good for aff debaters, make sure links are specific
I evaluate theory as the highest level of debate
Make sure to articulate your arguments, especially if you're reading analytics
Competing interps vs reasonability debate is important
Friv theory is bad, 0 speaks xd
I love disads and political args
Link debate is important
Weighing your arguments is very important
Make sure the CP solves the net benefit. CP debates are good if well articulated. Explain the CP text well to me.
Floating pics are not acceptable
I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major.
Chance that I will not be able to understand, so if you do choose to run, please explain very well
PLEASE DON'T PREF ME.
I'll vote off the flow. I won't flow cx so repeat important concessions in your speeches. I also take evidence ethics violations seriously, I will ask for evidence after round if it is an issue in round or if someone asks me to in a speech. If there is legitimate abuse, I will drop you and dock your speaker points.
Speed: fine with speed but don't hit spreading levels, this is PF.
Theory: I'll only vote off of it if you can explain why it's critical for the round
Hey! My name is Julian Silva.
My paradigm is a little different than many others. I have no competetive debate experience besides advanced college debate courses.
As such, I want to reward the skill I find the most useful in a debate: adaptability.
A little history and background on me.
I spent 5 years running an incredibly hot sales floor in a very technical field. I've sold over 15 million dollars worth of computers, servers, networking equipment and mass storage solutions. If a dirty negotation tactic exists you better believe I've used it or seen it used.
I carry an associates degree in Computer Technologies and specialized in hardware repair and manufacturing. I also carry an associates degree in Communication. I am currently pursuing a bachelors in the field of Communication with a specialty in study of the First Amendment as well as rhetoric in War. I've done more neo-aristotelian criticisms than you have hairs on your head so I will definitely be looking at your ethos, pathos and logos.
That said, if there's anything you want to remember about my preferences is this: I want to see chaos. I might even influence it myself by changing the setting of your debate if allowed. I want to see a passion for your arguments that burns with the white hot intensity of a thousand burning suns. Nothing will make you lose more points with me than a speaker that acts like a teleprompter. If I wanted to read your arguments I would've asked for your OS and read it myself. Dirty tricks are not only allowed, they are encouraged. Keep it civil, but don't be afraid to call out an opponent on a lie or insinuate that they insult the intelligence of the judge by stating an obvious fact and demanding evidence. Take risks, gamble all of your argument away on a hunch, throw a wrench into your opponents plans both literally and rhetorically. (I'm kidding, keep it civil. No felonies, but I will allow a class C misdemeanor to slide if the weather is nice.)
I always disclose results and give critique when allowed. I'm both the best judge you'll ever have and the worst. I will make sure you leave the debate a better person, but I will also break your heart by absolutely demolishing your arguments.
I allow 5 minutes of Q&A so that both sides of the debate can ask questions they feel will help them win influence. (when allowed) "How was your morning? What kind of car do you drive? What are your thoughts on (x) topic?"
Bring your best and take risks.
This is my first time judging. Please slow down and present your arguments.
Current:PhD student @Rice
Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,
Debate stock**, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not just at 300 wpm. I am not that fast anymore, I do not coach, and I don't even read the topics. You have been warned.
** I like fun arguments still and can get quite bored of stock. If you run zanier things, just take the time to explain better.
Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump
I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.
"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."
I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.
Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).
for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.
If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~
If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.
I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.
It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.
I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.
I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.
Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"
NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.
Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.
On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.
ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:
PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
I did not debate in high school or college, so I appreciate cogent, reasoned, clear, and persuasive speech rather than technicalities and empty rhetoric. Please be polite to each other and to me, talk slowly, and enunciate. Looking forward to judging your rounds :)!
Hi! I'm Keerthana Routhu and I'm a fourth year studying Computer Science and Computational Math at UC Santa Cruz. I went to Irvington High School and have competed in a couple of Parliamentary Debates. When speaking, speed is fine, just make sure that it is reasonable enough for your opponents and me to understand your arguments. I like seeing roadmaps (off-time is okay), evidence, and well-structured impacts. Finally, please be polite and respectful to everyone involved in making these debate tournaments possible. Good luck!
There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.
When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!
These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.
For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.
I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.
I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.
Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.
A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.
If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.
Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.
All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.
I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.
Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.
I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.
I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.
KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.
Tech v. Truth
I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.
For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.
My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!
Good luck :^)
I am a lay judge/parent.
In your debate, make no assumptions of prior knowledge of subject area. Explain your arguments and evidence clearly. More contentions does not mean better contentions, make me understand your definitions, weighing mechanism and why your speeches show you win the debate. It is very important that I understand how your arguments relate to and address the resolution.
Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments.
Please do not speak too quickly or I will have to disregard information that I missed. I take notes, so make sure to emphasize what you really want me to hear.
Tell me why you win this debate, don't make me have to guess.
And above all, have fun.
UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update
I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.
Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.
POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.
- I know how to flow and will flow.
- This means I require a road map.
- I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
- I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
- I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
- Be strategic and make good life choices.
- Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
- I will vote on case turns.
- I will call for cards if it comes down to it.
I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.
Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.
I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.
Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.
I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.
I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.
Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.
You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.
I'm a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years, but here are some of my preferences for the debate round.
- Please speak slowly and try to be as clear as possible so I can better comprehend what you are trying to say during your speech.
- Refrain from using acronyms and abbreviations during your speech
- Avoid running Ks
- Theory is fine but heads up I am not very familiar with it, so in the scenario, you run it makes sure you tell me why it is important in the round to avoid using the tech terms in the process for me to understand.
I will most likely give the vote to whichever side efficiently presents its case with logical arguments.
I have done 4 years of HS Varsity LD Debate
- Tabula Rasa: I will attempt to remain as fair as possible and only judge based on the information brought up during the round
- Spreading: I am okay with speed and am able to follow generally. However, I will not go out of my way to understand you if you are not articulate and will expect you to slow down for your argument taglines.
- Theory: If there is abuse and the debate moves towards theory I will judge on it. I prefer not to have a theory debate though.
- Weigh: make sure to weigh the debate and provides links for your impacts.
I am a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience in parliamentary debate.
Please clearly articulate your arguments so I can understand them. I love impact analysis in 3rd speeches, especially if you've extended them through all 3 speeches. Please do PMT analysis (probability, magnitude, timeframe). Call POOs if you spot them, but do not be excessive since it is disruptive to the speaker. I protect the flow. If there are any topics with necessary background information or context, please provide it for me at the beginning.
K or T:
If you are running any technical arguments, please explain them so I can understand. I do not like kritiks since they are very difficult for me to understand. I understand theory on a very basic level, so please only run it if you really must (I do not like frivolous theory), and even then, explain every aspect clearly and slowly. I appreciate strong reasoning and analysis to make it clear for me to decide who wins the round. Good luck, and I look forward to a great debate!
I'm a parent judge for Dougherty Valley High School. This is my first time judging.
Please speak slowly and clearly. If I don't understand your points I won't use them to evaluate the round.
Don't run any K's, I will drop you. If you run theory, make sure to completely explain it so I understand.
I award speaker points on clarity, persuasiveness, good rhetoric, etc.
If you present a clear path to the ballot, that helps me make a decision for your side.
I will take notes.
I look for good use of statistics, empirical examples, etc.
I also look for real world impacts.
I value debate skill over truth.
I am a fairly new judge to parliamentary debate. Please go slow and clearly. Thanks
* note for TOC * judge paradigms that include things like "I will drop you if you run a kritik," you just don't want black, indigenous, and students of color to access this space and it shows.
Specifics for Parli:
I am the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.
ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions which are laid out in this paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round and I am certain that I ask each team if they would like to pose such questions before EVERY round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t be allowed in the round.
Resolution Complications: Parli is tough partly because it is hard to write hundreds of resolutions per year. A very small number of people do the bulk of this for the community, myself being one of them. I am sympathetic to both the debaters and the topic writers. If the resolution is skewed, the debater has to deal with the skew in some fashion. This can mean running theory or a K. It can also mean building a very narrow affirmative and going for high probability impacts or solvency and just winning that level of the debate. There are ways to win in most cases, I don’t believe that the Aff should be guaranteed all of the specific ground they could be. Often times these complaints are demands to debate what one is already familiar with and avoid the challenge of unexplored intellectual territory. Instead, skew should be treated as a strategic thinking challenge. I say this because I don’t have the power to change the resolution for you. My solution is to be generous to K Affs, Ks, and theory arguments if there is clear skew in one direction or another.
Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments these are the things which are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.
Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.
Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.
If there is time, I ALWAYS give an oral RFD which teams are ALWAYS free to record unless I say otherwise. I will do my best to also provide written feedback, but my hope is that the recorded oral will be better. I do not disclose in prelims unless the tournament makes me.
My presumption is that theory comes first unless you tell me otherwise. I’m more than happy to vote on K Framework vs. Theory first debates in both directions.
I flow POI answers.
Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.
BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.
I’m more than happy to evaluate anything. I prefer education voters to fairness voters. It is “reject the argument” unless you tell me otherwise. Tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. I’m not confident most know what it means. So, I’m not going to guess. Theory should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I don’t like Friv-theory in principle although I will vote on it. I would vastly prefer links that are real, interps that are real, and a nuanced discussion of scenarios which bad norms create. Just saying “neg always loses” isn’t enough. Tell me why and how that would play out.
Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.
The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded.
Uniqueness does actually matter. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.
I was a K debater in college, but I have come around to be more of a Case, DA, Theory coach. I also have a Ph.D in History and wrote a dissertation on the History of Capitalism. What does that mean? It means, I can understand your K and I am absolutely behind the specific sort of education that Ks provide. That being said a few caveats.
Out of round discussion is a false argument and I really don’t want to vote for it. Please don’t make me.
Performances are totally fine and encouraged. But, they had better be real. Being in the round talking isn’t enough, you need warrants as to why the specific discussion we are having in the debate on XYZ topic is uniquely fruitful. Personal narratives are fine. If you are going to speak in a language other than English, please provide warrants as to why that is productive for me AND your opponents. I speak Japanese, I will not flow arguments given in that language.
I would prefer that you actually have a rough understanding of what you are reading. I don't think you should get to win because you read the right buzzwords.
Alternatives need to be real. If they put offense on the Alt, you are stuck with that offense and have to answer it. Perms probably link into the K, please don’t make me vote for a bad perm.
I am less likely to vote against an aff on a K for something they might do. I am very likely to vote on rhetoric turns, i.e. stuff they did do. That is, if you are calling them racist and they say something racist, please point it out. Your impacts compete, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to answer their theory arguments or make your own. I would encourage you to show how your impacts compete pre- and post-fiat. Fiat isn’t illusory unless you make it so and extend it.
There is also a difference between calling the aff bad or it’s ideology bad and the debater a bad person. In general, debaters should proceed as if everyone is acting in good faith. That doesn’t mean that rhetoric links don’t function or that I won’t vote on the K if you accuse your opponent of promoting bad norms--intellectual, ideological, social, cultural, political, etc.. However, if one takes the pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the K seriously, Ks should not be used as a weapon of exclusion. No one has more of a right to debate than another. To argue otherwise is to weaponize the K. We want to exclude those norms and that knowledge which are violent and destructive to communities and individuals. We also probably want to exclude those who intentionally spread bad norms and ideology. However, I severely doubt that a 15-year-old in a high school debate round in 2022 is guaranteed to understand the full theoretical implications of a given K or their actions. As such, attacking the norms and ideology (e.g. the aff or res or debate) is a much better idea. It opens the door to educate others rather than just beating them. It creates healthy norms wherein we can become a stronger and more diverse community.
I love clean framework debates. I hate sloppy ones. If you are running a K, you probably need to put out a framework block. I would love to have that on a separate sheet of paper.
Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.
I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense usually isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.
Specifics for Public Forum:
Please give me overviews and tell me what the most important arguments are in the round.
Unless we are in Finals or Semis, I'm not going to read your evidence. I'm evaluating the debate, not the research that you did before the debate. If the round is really tight and everyone did a good job, I am willing to use quality of evidence as a tie-breaker. However, in general, I'm not going to do the work for you by reading the evidence after the round. It's your responsibility to narrate what's going on for me and to collapse down appropriately so that you have time to do that. If you feel like you don't have time to tell me a complete story, especially on the impact level, you are probably going for too much.
I don't have strong opinions regarding whether you start refutation or defense in the second or third speech. However, if things are tight, I will reward consistent argumentation and denser argumentation. That means the earlier you start an argument in the debate, the higher the likelihood that I will vote on it. Brand new arguments in the 4th round of speeches are not going to get much weight.
Thresholds for voting on solvency:
PF has evidence and for good reason. But, that doesn't mean that you can just extend a few buzzwords on your case if you are going for solvency and win. You have to tell me what your key terms mean. I don't know what things like "inclusive growth" or "economic equity" or "social justice" mean in the context of your case unless you tell me. You have 4 speeches to give me these definitions. Take the time to spell this stuff out. Probably best to do this in the first speech. Remember, I'm not going to read your evidence after the round except in extreme circumstances and even then...don't count on it. So, you need to tell me what the world looks like if I vote Pro or Con both in terms of good and bad outcomes.
I haven't come across any theory in PF yet that made any sense. I'm experienced in theory for Policy and Parli. If there are unique variations of theory for PF, take the time to explain them to me.
There isn't really enough speaking time to properly develop a fleshed out K in PF. However, I would be more than happen to just vote on impact turns like Cap Bad, for example. If you want to run K arguments, I would encourage you to do things of that sort rather than a fully shelled out K.
Specifics for Circuit Policy:
Evidence: I'm not going to read your cards, it's on you to read them clearly enough for me to understand them. You need to extend specific warrants from the cards and tell me what they say. Blippy extensions of tag lines aren't enough to get access to cards.
Go nuts. I can keep up with any speed as long as you are clear.
For all other issues see my parli paradigm, it's probably going to give you whatever you want to know.
Specifics for Lay Policy:
I do not understand the norm distinctions between what you do and circuit policy.
As such, I'm going to judge your rounds just like I would any Policy round --> Evidence matters, offense matters more than defense, rhetoric doesn't matter much. Rhetorical questions or other forms of unwarranted analysis will not be flowed. You need to extend arguments and explain them. If you have specific questions, please ask.
I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.
Few things that influence my judging :
1) Provide reasoning for your claims and support them with evidence.
2) I like to see how effectively the team was able to present the arguments and tackle each point presented by the opposing team.
3) Most IMPORTANT, Speak clearly and slowly, if you are too fast, no matter how good your arguments are, if I cannot follow, I cannot award points.
Hello- I am looking forward to the tournament. Here's my paradigm:
- I am a parent judge
- I didn't debate in high school or college but I have judged a number of high school tournaments virtually
- I have judged a variety of events but primarily parli
- I am lawyer and appreciate concise and cohesive arguments
- Please speak at a reasonable pace - I take notes
- Please avoid debate jargon
- I appreciate sign posting or you telling me where you are in your argument e.g. My first contention is ...
- I don't care for dramatics, theatrics or exaggeration- be substantively persuasive
- Be respectful not aggressive
- Have fun!
I am a parent judge with no debating experience. Have been a lay judge for the last 3 years. I may not be familiar with certain jargon that you use, so where necessary please clarify.
I take notes throughout the round and will try to flow. I like logical, reasoned and well-developed arguments and normally vote heavily on impacts. So let me know why your points matter.
Hi everyone ,
I have judged LD, Public Forum, and Parliamentary for three years now.
My only two requirements are to be respectful, and please don't spread (talk extremely fast).
I have more than three years worth of experience in forensics, and speech and debate. I have either participated in or judged almost every type of debate there is, and my Paradigm is pretty simple. I judge on the arguments presented and whether or not the arguments are presented with good structure and backed up and supported by evidence.
For AFF and NEG, in providing/citing evidence that supports your position, please explain your position clearly and the benefits/advantages of your position. Provide evidence that supports your position and provide examples from world events that supports your evidence. It's not sufficient to cite Y is better than X without providing evidence/examples where Y has been studied/deployed and proven to be better (i.e, Published papers/Studies, and specifics wherein Y is being used/deployed effectively, etc...).
I am a non native English speaker, so I would not prefer very fast speech as it is difficult for me to fully understand the content.
I will make my judgement based on your organization and how clearly you present, how you use the argument, and do cross-examination, and how you present your evidences, not based on the sounds-right or sounds-wrong on the debate topic itself.
So please be well prepared, and well organized, and be calm and clearly present your points.
no longer active in debate! if you're interested in reading my paradigm for some reason, email me at email@example.com and we can talk.
Dougherty Valley Flay Judge
How many years have you been judging?
I've been judging for 3 years.
How will you award speaker points to the debaters?
I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.
What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?
I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude. I do enjoy the more technical and meta side to debate, but it usually isn't like an all-or-nothing situation where I'll give the win to one team if they argue the technicalities better than the other (unless it becomes a major part of the debate).
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?
I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not in a flow format. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.
Preferences on the use of evidence?
I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.
How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?
I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.
Updated September 2021
I am a parent judge and it is my second year judging (mostly Parli). Having judged at least a dozen tournaments, I am comfortable with terminology and have heard a variety of styles and strategies. That said,
1. Please signpost - it helps me organize my notes and make a decision
2. No spreading if possible, I have trouble flowing when you speak fast
3. You can use theory but it has to be well explained.
Lay judge, first tournament. Please speak slowly and don’t run Ks. English is my second language, please enunciate and do not be monotone. I appreciate speaker who are interesting, passionate, and make things easy for me. when referring to pass arguments please explain them, don’t just reference them in one or two words or by their author. Good luck to all!